New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-07-28
THE LAND BILL DEBATE.
.rpueeLE OVER AN OBNOXIOUS CLAUSE.


wprrrEN NOTICES OF EvICTioNs-IhA. no wv
LrRs vAINLY PROTEST.
,oxr,r .Julv 27-Tbe debate on the Land Dill
,osumed ip the House Of Commons to-day
~, ~ Doherty Home Ruler, member ior Nortn
y.ns,a, moved, on behalf Of Mr. Parneli, to limit
a. three wears the clause providing for wr"'en
,ot,ces of evictions on the ground that tne pio-
.ons of the clause would only be required until
land purchase bill was passed. :.
M Balfour. speaking for the Government oo-
c,;ped to accept the proposed modification.
Iobn Dillon SAID that as the bill was only tom-
.ororv measure clause depriving tenants OF .no
small fragments of rights reserved 70 tnen uuI1,
the act of 1860 ought not to DO pefmsnon'. ~
asred whether the Government would aocop' VIZ.
arnsrdment securing to the tenant undisturoeo
possession between the service OF 'ne no'i'0 ''
av,cton and the time of the redemption.
NJ Ralfonr sa,d the Government would consider
favorablv auy amendment that would secure Inc
,enant s,ip,t delay between the service OF no'ico
~ eviction and tie execution Of 1t for the purpos0
of Giving him time to turn round and prevent 'no
npnearance of harshness on the part OF tno ie"u'
Thomas wallace Russell Onionist member !or
South Tyrone, suggested compromise ""o'
ev,ctees might be reinstated as caretakerS' anu ~
that capacity have six months time In "h.on "
rsdeem their holdings Caretakers were now iau'0
m eiectment within three days or week. MI
pussel supported the clause generally, because IL
would stop one-quarter Of the evictions and pre-
vent public scandals
Maurice Healy Home Ruler, member for Coik
c,v. denied that the clause would abolish evio-
,,.n. He contended that 1t would double evic-
IRONS. The argument to the contrary was hoio"
sham and lying pretence
The Cbairman-The member from Cork City must
restrain his language.
Cries Of "Heari" "Hear!"
Mr.. Healy ontnung ssld it was an electioneerlne
dodge to pretend that the Governments op]ect was
m abolish the scandal of evictiOns. The clause
was so bad that it outweighed all the Dement'S OF
m. hill. He would rather lose the bill than rave
The clause retained. The clause was deadly hos
tile blow at the tenants. The fact that the process
,f eviction was troublesome to landlords was q
protection to tenants, but the clause In the Dill
would Lessen this trouble to the landlords and IN
crease evictions hundredfold.
The Right Hon. George Shaw-Lefevre 'home
Rulen, member for Central Brad1ord' saiu
that the Parnellites had made out strong case
The clause was liable to great abuse and thereioie
should be temporary harsh ianaioro co"'u
,aslv convert his tenants into caretakers. when
lnov wou,d he at his mercy and liable to eviction
Ut any moment. -,
Mr. Balfour said in that respect the clause uiu
not change the existing law.
Mr.. Psrnell urged that the Government postpone
decision of the clause until Clause No. ~, dealing
With the powers of the Land Court to settle
syictions, was settled. He did not agree WIN
Maurice Healy's persistent opposition, but pre-
lerred to defer fDal Judgment until he couid
balance the risk of losing the bill against the un
aoubted risks to which the clause would subject
tepants. u
The chairman ruled against further debate. The
amendment offered by Mr.. O'Doherty was iost' tne
vote being 156 for and 212 against 1t.